View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 26, 2005, 12:06pm
M&M Guy M&M Guy is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Re: Not necessarily

Quote:
Originally posted by David B
Early in the game we might want to call the hand check to get it out of their system.
Late in the game, I might give them the benefit of the doubt if it doesn't affect the play.
If it's a hand-check foul early, why isn't the same contact a foul later? Or, conversely, if it's not a foul at the end of the game because it didn't affect the play, why would that same contact be a foul early?
Quote:

End of game situations demand a different mindset IMO.

Agreed.
Quote:

The same applies to intentional fouls. If I'm coaching I know what's coming, the kids know what's coming so we can officiate the same way.

Agreed as well. But it appears you might be contradicting yourself a little by saying you don't officiate the same way at the beginning of the game than you do at the end. That's my whole point - I think we need to be consistent throughout the whole game, so the coaches and players do know what to expect.
Quote:

At least that's my take on this situation. Why did FED address it? Because there was a problem with officials calling everything an intentional foul..
Actually, I thought the reason FED and NCAA addressed this was because officials were not calling the intentional. We were just calling common fouls in cases where it was obvious, according to the rules, the player was fouling only to stop the clock. Both committees feel fouling only to stop the clock is important enough to warrant an intentional foul, which is a harsher penalty than just a common foul.

It does require us to think a little more out there. Was there a play on the ball, or did a player just grab another so we would call the foul? Most of us in the past didn't have the guts to call an intentional in this late-game situation, but we're being told we should. That's because we're penalizing a team for being ahead and being able to control the ball, while all the other team needs to do is foul somebody, anybody. Yes, that's the way it's been, but that's not the way they want it called. Game management is important, but I wonder if we might be a little lazy or gutless by calling the "slight" contact now, rather than having to make the decision if a later, harder foul is intentional or flagrant. It's up to the players to make the plays. We can do what we can to talk players out of doing something stoopid, but let's not penalize the team that's ahead and doing a good job of keep-away.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote